During the month of March I was travelling in 2 parts of Chile: the Atacama desert and Patagonia. The juxtaposition of going first north and then south from desert to a land rich in glacial streams and lakes, was remarkable. In both places the simple beauty of the landscape was inspiring, however, one strange thing is that although both places are fairly remote and difficult to reach – both were full of tourists herded from spot to spot by tour and sightseeing buses. It was actually difficult – at the ends of the earth – to be alone. You often had to try to find a way to look, a perspective, that isolated the scenery from the scenery-peepers. This was true, even is one was willing to hike some distance. Also odd, considering how many tourists there were – is that internet access was relatively poor. It felt off-kilter to be surrounded by people and yet disconnected. Probably akin to traveling to Niagra Falls or to the Grand Canyon before cell phones and video cameras. It reminded me that we now have to try to be in the moment with the people we are with – something that was unavoidable years ago.
Spring is in the air – after a fairly rough winter the local temps have climbed into the 60sF and 70sF rather abruptly and yet immediately there were people in shorts and diners at outdoor cafes. Amazing. And it doesn’t matter if it gets cold again or even if it snows… winter is on its last legs. For many private funders another reliable harbinger of spring are proposal-application deadlines. In other posts I have mentioned a common trap for funders is becoming disappointed with expected outcomes partially due to the mismatch of those expectations with what was actually done (the design of programs and the scope of the grants). A similar trap can befall the application process – mismatching application guidelines with the funder’s funding priorities. A foundation may want to “change the direction of a field” and thinks it will accomplish that with a fellowship training program requiring the fellow to be at a top-ranked (read status quo) laboratory. SImilarly, funders will ask for “outside the box” ideas and then require a detailed research proposal as though novel ideas come wrapped in 3 linear specific aims and a to-the-penny detailed budget.
Researchers attempt to parse the guidelines and try to figure out how to make what it is that they do look like what it appears the funders want. Funders get cold feet when faced with novelty and go with the safer bet. And so the silly season wears on with everyone frustrated and stressed.
The interesting component of grantmaking, to me, is the what not the how. Too often Foundations, particularly Foundations supporting scientific research get caught up in the application process. How many pages? Should applications allow additional or appended information? Should we require the use of foundation-generated forms? What expenses should be allowed? I am not saying that process doesn’t matter. It is important, if a Foundation issues RFAs and solicits applications, that there are processes in place that have integrity and that there are principled ways of keeping as level a playing field as possible so that decisions to fund or not fund can be made. Still, most of the real work comes in developing a strong institutional compass concerning what it is that a Foundation will support and being able to articulate the choice of directions. Foundations supporting research know that they do not operate in a vacuum – and must continually evaluate how their values intersect with the norms and values of academic institutions. Too often I hear conversations lamenting the failure of Foundations to support some items Universities want research budgets to support without any accompanying discussion as to whether such expenses are a legitimate cost for research budgets. Similarly – the shifting of internal expenses to external sources of funding is really questioned on a fundamental level. Rather, Foundations are often asked to be responsive to the needs or perceived needs of University administrators. For small funders, the shifting of burdens is not a zero sum game. Every decision to fund is also a decision not to fund. Such decisions should rest on principles.
Recently there has been a spate of editorials discussing the incontrovertible eveidence that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. An example can be found in today’s Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073744290909186.html
In this blog and in other places I have written in one way or another about the negative resuts of public discussion and policy making running ahead of the science the discussions and policy making are supposedly based on. Cognitively, we do not deal with uncertainty very well – the anecdotes about our perceptions of risk and on human decision-making are legion. The most familiar example is the number of people who will not risk flying but drive thousands of miles on the highway.
So even thought the science supporting the link behind MMR vaccine and autism was weak right from the beginning – the findings preyed on the fears and the uncertainties of parents who had to make a decision. And it offered an fairly easy to understand explanation to parents suffering with trying to understand how a terrible disease could be afflicting a child. The MMR provided an external, readily identified enemy to blame. Perhaps the worst aspect of all of this is that good data AFTER THE FACT can rarely dislodge doubt. Energy, resources, and skill have been deflected from the real problem to a fake one. There is lots of balme to share. As private funders, and disease advocates – it is time for us to take a long look in the mirror and ask ourselves what we could do differently next time.
Surely a fundamental time constant has slipped. The years are going by much quicker than I remember. It seems like only weeks ago that I wrote the 2009 end of year message.
I came across a phrase while reading about a recent program evaluation posted on the Keck Foundation website that has me thinking about the ways Foundations determine grant outcomes. Although much of the evaluation committee findings summarized on Keck’s website was the usual high praise one expects when scientists review the private funding of science – the observation that Keck had also funded some “noble failures” could not but catch the eye. What is a noble failure? And what does it mean to a FOundation to have a few of these in their portfolio. I suppose “noble failure” describes work of promise that didn’t quite pan out. It is encouraging that Foundations funding science and traditionally claiming that they can and do take risks – actually taking risks. I do think attempting difficult work has a certain nobility. But do such efforts deserve to be saddled with the value-laden term failure. Isn’t it good science to tackle difficult problems in ways that might not immediately succeed? Don’t we gain valuable insights that help us try again along different paths? For some reason “noble failures” may me sad for the researchers who reached, and tried, and did not quite succeed – YET. Probably they are also not the kind that become easily discouraged. Or so we hope.
Recently, at a small scientific meeting, a colleague and I be-moaned the loss of the good (bad?) old days of scientific conferences when questions from the floor were not quite as polite as today and would, at times, devolve into knock-down, drag’em out arguments. Knowing full well that any observation beginning with “remember…” marks you as a geezer we both were willing to admit that maybe it was we who had changed, not the meetings, and that perhaps the passage of time had altered our memories. Still, we couldn’t shake our beliefs that there was a time – we tried to create a chronology; definitely pre-1990′s – when questions from the floor were often pointed and sharp. As a student preparing to give a talk at conferences one would try to anticipate from what direction the questions would come and be ready. It was never possible. Inevitably someone always asked the question that would, no doubt about it, have you back at the bench and hard at it when you returned to the lab. We both could not remember in those days the softballing that is now commonplace. Particularly irksome is the typical remark after a rather mundane and artless presentation: “thank you for that interesting presentation…”.
So what’s our beef? It is not that we resent the kindler, gentler land conferences have become. It is that we miss the rigor of real scientific questioning. We regret the loss of standards and the new acceptance that all research is good research. We have lost something. Something important. Because rigor, and standards, and hard questions make science better.
Thanks to all the far-seeing individuals, like Mr. James S. McDonnell, who established private foundations and dedicated their personal wealth to advance the common good. I have mentioned numerous times that one truly wonderful aspect of the strong American tradition of philanthropy is that it provides for distributed decision making rather than having all support derive from a central government or a state- established religion. In the sciences this is particularly important as philanthropic dollars can provide support for those with ideas departing from the scientific orthodoxy and for individuals who may want to revisit common wisdom assumptions (particularly those based on limited data).
The individuals and families establishing private foundations did not have to dedicate large portions of their wealth to charitiable purposes. That they did so is an act we should all be grateful for – because we all have benefited, even if we may not be aware of how. Again, when it comes to the philanthropic support of science – two great traditions were essentially born and came of age together — american science and american philanthropy. I sincerely hope the great tradition continues to flourish!
Increasingly I get the feeling that foundations supporting scientific research are overly aligned by the insidious “you are either with us against us” rhetoric of academic scientists, particularly those who want to trade the aloof ivory tower for the sandbox of science policy. Philanthropy should be reluctant to yield its ‘third sector’ identity – meaning it is not government and it is not business. Even in support for scientific research – philanthropy’s value, considering its relatively small size – lies in its independent system of decision making. It has become unfashionable to question science. Any criticism is interpreted as giving to solace to the enemy – a term that in a rather circular kind of argument seems to apply to anyone who questions science. The undertone is, of course that only the far right fringe has a problem with science. Overall, defensiveness is not good for science – particularly when the issues intersect with social values, social norms, and in many cases the health, education, and self-understanding of all of us. it is time for researchers and third sector funders to have honest, sophisticated conversations on why it is that problems do or do not yield to our current knowledge. Everything should be on the table and open to scrutiny.
Is it just my imagination or are junior scientists getting older and older? Certain meetings that I used to attend that were usually showcasing younger scientists now seem to be stages for those well-past even the kindest effort to classify as “young.” The fact that I have noticed this – as my age (like the price of milk; although the causal relationship has not yet been established) has also altered upwards. Certainly there is data indicating that, over the past few decades, the age when one secures his or her first major independent grant has steadily krept upwards. There are lots of reasons for this statistic – but now I am beginning to wonder if the broader cultural phenomenon of keeping one’s progeny as children untile their 3rd or 4th decade is creeping into academic science. Maybe there is something akin to “helicopter mentoring” going on? Or maybe it is that as we older members of communities infantalize the younger by witholding responsibility via the witholding of opportunities is contributing to the gray tones of academic science?
For those of us in philanthropy it is hard to keep up with the amount of private giving pouring into education – particularly in support of K-12 education. Where does the money go? At the same time school systems are announcing philanthropic and corporate gifts in the 10′s and 100′s of millions of dollars, communities are being asked to participate in ‘stuff the bus’ and other gimmicky appeals to stock classrooms with basic supplies. As adminstrators chase the big bucks classroom teachers are chasing crayons and craft paper. It just doesnt make sense.
Similarly – visit any academic medical center. The campuses are starting to rival Dubai. There is so much glass and steel, fountains and gardens, coffee shops and dining establishments. And yet – funders who support biomedical research via grants receive budgets requesting salaries for everyone involved, never mind the expressed need for funds to purchase computers, basic supplies, and rat chow.
What is going on? I, for one, would like some honest discussion about it all.